DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 21-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
The claims are directed to providing data corresponding to sporting event participants (mental processes and organizing methods of human activity) involving:
determine, according to a content filtering policy, that a content item includes a player tag that identifies a player included in a lineup associated with a client (Mental process, a person selecting roster, and Certain methods of organizing human activity, CMOHA, game rules related to providing specific data and information corresponding to athletes on the roster);
provide the content item to the client for presentation with a plurality of content items in a content feed based on the determination that the content item includes the player included in the lineup associated with the client (Mental process and CMOHA, sorting and receiving data corresponding to particular athletes on roster from an information/reference source such as a newspaper or the like);
receive, from the client, a request to remove the player from the lineup (Mental process, a choice by a user to modify respective roster, or CMOHA, athlete is no longer participating in a sporting contest, e.g., sporting event has ended, athlete injury);
restrict, based on the request and the content filtering policy, the content item from subsequent selection within the content feed to remove the content item from the content feed (Mental process and CMOHA, specific data is managed and sorted to exclude some data).
Claims 21 and 31 do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
The claim does not improve the functioning of the computer itself or another technology; rather, it uses the computer components as tools to implement the abstract idea of organizing and providing specific data.
No particular machine beyond generic components. Claims 21 and 31 recite “one or more processors coupled to non-transitory memory,”; “client device”; yet, these are generic computing elements. See MPEP 2106.05(b), (f).
The additional element (client device) is generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use and do not impose a meaningful limit on the abstract idea.
Accordingly, the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under MPEP § 2106.04(d).
Considered individually and as an ordered combination, the claims do not recite an inventive concept (“significantly more”) beyond the abstract ideas.
Generic computer components and environments (processor, memory, and devices) performing data receiving and sending are well-understood, routine, and conventional (WURC) activities in the field of computer gaming.
Under Berkheimer v. HP, 881 F.3d 1360, absent evidence in the record that any claimed element or arrangement is not WURC, it is proper to treat generic processors, memories, devices, and data receiving/sending as conventional. The claims do not recite non-conventional computer functionality or architecture.
No specific algorithm, data structure, or hardware improvement is claimed that would transform the abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter.
Therefore, claims 21-40 ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The claims are directed to judicial exceptions—mental process and organizing methods of human activity —and do not integrate those exceptions into a practical application. The additional elements, viewed individually and in combination, amount to no more than the abstract idea of processing and providing player data according to a user’s request, implemented on a generic computer, and therefore do not add “significantly more.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 21, 23-28, 30, 31, 33-38, and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub. 20130158688 to Barber in view of US Pub. 20170115857 to Hughes et al (Hughes).
Claims 21 and 31. Barber discloses a system, comprising:
one or more processors coupled to non-transitory memory, the one or more processors configured to:
determine, according to a content filtering policy (decides which information is sent to respective user devices), that a content item includes a player tag (information associated with different athletes, e.g., name, position, team) that identifies a player included in a lineup associated with a client device (Fig. 25, ¶¶2, 40, 48-49, 126 “roster”);
provide the content item to the client device for presentation with a plurality of content items in a content feed (¶¶3, 50 receive specific data, notifications, or the like – e.g., scores, stats, etc.) based on the determination that the content item includes the player included in the lineup associated with the client device (Figs. 12, 20, 25, ¶¶40, 48-49, 96-97, 104, receive data corresponding to particular athletes on the user’s roster);
receive, from the client device, a request to remove the player from the lineup (Figs. 25 ¶¶2, 40, 48-49, 126 “fantasy sports contest data may include … trades of real-life athletes, real-life athletes that are disabled or ineligible due to injury or expulsion”, e.g., regarding athlete injury, trade, release, bench, etc.);
restrict, the content filtering policy, the content item from subsequent selection within the content feed to remove the content item from the content feed (¶¶2, 40, 48, 126 the user will only receive data corresponding to athletes activated on the user’s roster).
However, Barber fails to explicitly disclose restrict, based on the request and the content filtering policy, the content item from subsequent selection within the content feed to remove the content item from the content feed (emphasis added).
Hughes teaches restrict, based on the request and the content filtering policy, the content item from subsequent selection within the content feed to remove the content item from the content feed (Figs. 14, 17-22, ¶¶81, 94 “user's instructions to make a change in the user's team roster selections or the selection of a highlight segment for viewing”). The system of Barber would have motivation to use the teachings of Hughes in order to ensure specific data is not provided to user’s device, so that users’ devices will only receive notification, updates, news, or the like for only athletes on their respective rosters.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Barber with the teachings of Hughes in order to ensure specific data is not provided to user’s device, so that users’ devices will only receive notification, updates, news, or the like for only athletes on their respective rosters.
Claims 23 and 33. Barber in view of Hughes teaches wherein the one or more processors are further configured to:
receive a request for content from the client device; and
provide the content feed for presentation at the client device in response to the request for content (see Barber Fig. 12, ¶104; see Hughes Figs. 14, 17-22, ¶94).
Claims 24 and 34. Barber in view of Hughes teaches wherein the one or more processors are further configured to:
receive, from the client device, a request to disable a content filtering policy; and
provide, for presentation in the content feed and based on receiving the request to disable the content filtering policy, an additional content item including a second player tag that does not identify any player included in the lineup (see Barber Fig. 20, ¶119; see Hughes Figs. 14, 17-22, ¶¶81, 94, note, data related to athletes not on instant user’s roster).
Claims 25 and 35. Barber in view of Hughes teaches wherein the one or more processors are further configured to:
receive a request to add the player to the lineup; and
select the content item for inclusion in the content feed based on the request to add the player to the lineup (see Barbar ¶¶40, 49, 126, note, adding athletes to an active user roster would include receiving said athlete’s corresponding data).
Claims 26 and 36. Barber in view of Hughes teaches wherein the one or more processors are further configured to:
establish a web socket connection with the client device; and
transmit the content item to the client device based on determining that the web socket connection is active (see Barber ¶¶53, 66, e.g., online Internet connection).
Claims 27 and 37. Barber in view of Hughes teaches wherein the one or more processors are further configured to:
receive a request for content from the client device; and
store the request for content in a queue (see Hughes ¶102 “queued”) prior to the web socket connection being active (see Barber ¶¶53, 66, e.g., prior to an Internet connection at user’s device, data is in a queue ready for distribution to the computing device).
Claims 28 and 38. Barber in view of Hughes teaches wherein the one or more processors are further configured to:
maintain a plurality of lineups associated with an account associated with the client device (see Barber ¶96; see Hughes ¶59); and
update the account by modifying an existing lineup of the plurality of lineups or adding a new lineup to the plurality of lineups (see Barber ¶¶40, 125-126,).
Claims 30 and 40. Barber in view of Hughes teaches wherein the one or more processors are further configured to:
provide a graphical user interface comprising an actionable element that, when selected, causes the content filtering policy to be applied to the content feed (see Hughes Figs. 14, 17-22, e.g., menu and options)
Claims 29 and 39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub. 20130158688 to Barber in view of US Pub. 20170115857 to Hughes et al (Hughes) as applied to claims 21 and 31 above, and further in view of Daily fantasy sports - Wikipedia - https://web.archive.org/web/20170709052042/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daily_fantasy_sports - herein referred to as DFS.
Claims 29 and 39. Barber in view of Hughes fails to explicitly disclose determine that a second lineup associated with the client device has expired; and remove a second player from the second lineup based on the determination that the second lineup has expired.
DFS teaches determine that a second lineup associated with the client device has expired; and remove a second player from the second lineup based on the determination that the second lineup has expired (users can play in multiple fantasy contests and/or register multiple fantasy teams for a daily or weekly fantasy contest, the corresponding real-life sporting events and the fantasy contest has end dates and times at which time particular athletes’ data will no longer be updated). The system of Barber in view of Hughes would have motivation to use the teachings of DFS in order to provide respective users’ devices only with relevant updates, so that users’ devices will only receive notification, updates, news, or the like only for active athletes on their respective rosters.
It would have been further obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Barber in view of Hughes with the teachings of DFS in order to provide respective users’ devices only with relevant updates, so that users’ devices will only receive notification, updates, news, or the like only for active athletes on their respective rosters.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAMON J PIERCE whose telephone number is (571)270-1997. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kang Hu can be reached at 571-270-1344. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DAMON J PIERCE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights